Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co.

D.C. Circuit

Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co.

48 App. D.C. 213, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1918

DocketNos. 1165 and 1166

StatusPublished

This text of 48 App. D.C. 213 (Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co., 48 App. D.C. 213, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380 (D.C. Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

These are appeals from decisions of the Patent Office tribunals sustaining appellee’s petition for the cancelation of the letters “D,” “T,” and “T C,” which appellant, the Dennison Manufacturing Company, theretofore had registered as trademarks for tags.

The Patent Office, after a review of the evidence, found that appellant had not used these letters as trademarks, but merely as grade marks; and, since it appeared that appellee, the Denney Tag Company, was using substantially the same marks in the same way, sustained the petition for cancelation. This action clearly was right; for words, letters, figures, or symbols not denoting origin or ownership, but merely indicating quality, are not capable of exclusive appropriation. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co. 138 U. S. 537, 547, 34 L. ed. 997, 1003, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U. S. 460, 463, 37 L. ed. 1144, 1146, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151.

The interest of appellee was sufficient to form the basis for its petition to cancel. Tim & Co. v. Cluett, P. & Co. 42 App. D. C. 212.

The decisions are affirmed. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

These are appeals from decisions of the Patent Office tribunals sustaining appellee’s petition for the cancelation of the letters “D,” “T,” and “T C,” which appellant, the Dennison Manufacturing Company, theretofore had registered as trademarks for tags.

The Patent Office, after a review of the evidence, found that appellant had not used these letters as trademarks, but merely as grade marks; and, since it appeared that appellee, the Denney Tag Company, was using substantially the same marks in the same way, sustained the petition for cancelation. This action clearly was right; for words, letters, figures, or symbols not denoting origin or ownership, but merely indicating quality, are not capable of exclusive appropriation. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co. 138 U. S. 537, 547, 34 L. ed. 997, 1003, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U. S. 460, 463, 37 L. ed. 1144, 1146, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151.

The interest of appellee was sufficient to form the basis for its petition to cancel. Tim & Co. v. Cluett, P. & Co. 42 App. D. C. 212.

The decisions are affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 App. D.C. 213, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennison-manufacturing-co-v-denney-tag-co-cadc-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack